★ Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
31
felicity.† † Hæc felicitas Yet to entirety & perfection of human felicity are required certain good
things of nature the body and fortune, – & moreover that serene pleasure of mind which is
born (though it should seem in a sort of sly way) – is born subnascitur
from the conscience of things well done.
And this felicity he goes on to assure us is a steady kind of
good – and not easily can it be lost. With the assurance you have the grounds & reasons
of the assurance – for says he † † p 10 virtue in which its foundation is laid – (the
summum bonum being itself the virtue) – neither can it be snatched out of hands
unwilling to part with it, – nor when the good things of the body & fortune
are gone does it immediately go along with them. In a word by the loss
of external good things the essence of felicity is not taken away – all that
happens to it is to be diminished & to have its integrity mutilated.
But to But there was another class of philosophers – hogs indeed – who
did not see the visions nor enjoy the enjoyments of the Platonists & Academics
with their divinity or divinities – nor stumble with the Stoics on their habits of
virtue – the sensual hogs – the Epicureans. The summum bonum being
the thing sought – where did they look – who would have thought it? They, – hogs
as they were – looked for it in pleasure. So says the Instructor. It was in
pleasure Yea! in bodily pleasure. Yet on the very face of the story there is
incorrectness in this account of them. That to them pleasure was pleasure is
highly probable – that if they had been sent to hunt for summum bonum
they would have looked towards pleasure, that too is very likely but that
in their account of pleasures, pleasures not wh bodily were omitted, is
neither probable à priori, – nor is it true in fact.
Some pleasures have their seat in the body – others in the mind.
To whom is this most obvious fact unknown? By whom is it unexperienced?
Could these philosophers be ignorant of that with which every body is acquainted.
Identifier: | JB/015/162/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 15.
|
|||
---|---|---|---|
015 |
deontology |
||
162 |
|||
001 |
|||
linking material |
1 |
||
recto |
f31 |
||
sir john bowring |
[[watermarks::[prince of wales feathers] i&m 1818]] |
||
arthur wellesley, duke of wellington |
|||
1818 |
|||
5378 |
|||